Author Topic: corner speed  (Read 163 times)

Offline BigCrate

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
corner speed
« on: January 17, 2002, 12:53:02 AM »
Anyone know he equation for corner speed?
Reading thru shaw's fighter combat and I thought it would give a equation for it but it don't.. So does anyone know the equation??
I had it we I 1st flew in AW but that was 6 years ago..

CW

Offline Badboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: corner speed
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2002, 03:15:29 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by BigCrate
Anyone know he equation for corner speed?
Reading thru shaw's fighter combat and I thought it would give a equation for it but it don't.. So does anyone know the equation??
I had it we I 1st flew in AW but that was 6 years ago..
CW


A modern definition of the corner speed for an aircraft, would be the lowest speed that the aircraft can reach its g limit. In Aces High there isn't a g limit. Some of the aircraft have structural or placard limits, at the point where they suffer damage under load, but the important limit for BFM in AH is the physiological limit. That's because you will black out above 6g and so higher loads aren't practical because generally speaking, if you lose sight, you lose the fight.

So, if you consider the corner velocity in AH to be the lowest speed at which 6g is still available to you, it is easy to calculate because it is just the 6g stall speed and can be found if you know the 1g stall speed. You just need to multiply the 1g stall speed by the square root of 6g. The square root of 6 is 2.45 so just multiply by that.

For example, if an aircraft has a stall speed of 85 mph then its corner speed would be 2.45 * 85 = 208 mph.

Hope that helps.

Badboy
The Damned (est. 1988)
  • AH Training Corps - Retired
  • Air Warrior Trainer - Retired

Offline streakeagle

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1025
      • Streak Eagle - Stephen's Website
corner speed
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2002, 08:12:19 PM »
That equation is an idealization. If you study actual performance curves, compressibility and other factors neglected by that equation cause the wing to perform worse than that formula predicts. But it does give you a reasonable approximation at low mach numbers. It is most accurate at low altitude and low g-loadings where the aircraft speed tends to be lower, the speed of mach 1 is at a maximum, and the mach number of the air flowing over the wing is at a minimum and thereby minimizing the effects of compressibility.

It takes advanced computer modeling and a detailed 3-d plot of the aircraft (especially the wing and airfoil) to accurately predict aerodynamic performance at high speeds and high g-loads. In the end, even with the United States incredible lead in aerodynmic modeling software, only the actual test flights of the full size aircraft will provide data you can bank on.

I appreciate HTCs problem in modeling WWII aircraft. The majority of the aircraft for that timeframe do not have the kind of performance charts needed to nail the flight models. I assume that they use all reliable datapoints available and interpolate the remainder of the curves using the basic equations and good old human judgement. It seems that everytime someone provides better data from a relaible source, they re-evaluate the interpolation and judgement calls.

It would do the flight sim community a world of good if owners of warbirds would fully restore them to combat weights and performance, then do the necessary flight testing to produce the standard peformance charts used for modern jet fighters showing specific excess power, sustained g, instaneous g, cornering velocity, and roll rate as a function of speed and altitude. Of course, this would be an expensive process and would be of little benefit to anyone outside of those playing flight sim games. Personally, I think NASA could learn a lot by evaluating the differences between all these high performance aircraft, especially as they approach transonic speeds. It would probably help in their effort to make propellor airliners that are as fast as the turbofan ones of today.
i5(4690K) MAXIMUS VII HERO(32 Gb RAM) GTX1080(8 Gb RAM) Win10 Home (64-bit)
OUR MISSION: PROTECT THE FORCE, GET THE PICTURES, ...AND KILL MIGS!

Offline MrDick

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
corner speed
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2002, 08:33:55 PM »
From my Introduction to Flight 3rd edition p.333

V* the corner velocity can be computed as such

V* = sqrt[ ( ( 2 * n_max ) / ( r_00 * Cl_max ) ) * ( W/ S ) ]

where:
n_max is load limit for aircraft defined as lift / weight
r_00 is the free stream air density
Cl_max is the maximum coefficient of lift for the wing
W/S is the wing loading or weight / wing surface area

speeds above V* can damage the airframe (i.e. wings rip off)

Corner velocity is the speed at which turn radius is smallest and angular velocity is greatest.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2002, 08:36:53 PM by MrDick »

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
corner speed
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2002, 08:45:49 PM »
Badboy's approach is perfect for AH.

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
corner speed
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2002, 09:00:25 PM »
studying ww2 airplanes would not help nasa at all

Offline BigCrate

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
corner speed
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2002, 09:00:30 PM »
yeah badz is better suited fer AH.. man yall going in depth on this WOW AE majors :).hehehe but thanks fer the replys tho.

CW

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
corner speed
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2002, 09:02:13 PM »
i dont think studying ww2 airplanes would have any impact on current designs. but if they were to pay for it it would be awesome. i have a contract from nasa and they are paying me but it is for evaluating upcoming technologies' impact on design concepts. i dont think the new nasa administrator is a big aces high fan ;)